Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 9 Jul 2021 12:16:46 +0530 | From | Viresh Kumar <> | Subject | Re: [Patch v3 3/6] cpufreq: qcom-cpufreq-hw: Add dcvs interrupt support |
| |
On 08-07-21, 08:06, Thara Gopinath wrote: > static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > { > struct platform_device *pdev = cpufreq_get_driver_data(); > @@ -370,6 +480,10 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to enable boost: %d\n", ret); > } > > + ret = qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_init(policy, index);
You missed unregistering EM here (which is also missing from exit, which you need to fix first in a separate patch).
> + if (ret) > + goto error; > + > return 0; > error: > kfree(data); > @@ -389,6 +503,10 @@ static int qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit(struct cpufreq_policy *policy) > > dev_pm_opp_remove_all_dynamic(cpu_dev); > dev_pm_opp_of_cpumask_remove_table(policy->related_cpus); > + if (data->lmh_dcvs_irq > 0) { > + devm_free_irq(cpu_dev, data->lmh_dcvs_irq, data);
Why using devm variants here and while requesting the irq ?
> + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&data->lmh_dcvs_poll_work); > + }
Please move this to qcom_cpufreq_hw_lmh_exit() or something.
Now with sequence of disabling interrupt, etc, I see a potential problem.
CPU0 CPU1
qcom_cpufreq_hw_cpu_exit() -> devm_free_irq(); qcom_lmh_dcvs_poll() -> qcom_lmh_dcvs_notify() -> enable_irq()
-> cancel_delayed_work_sync();
What will happen if enable_irq() gets called after freeing the irq ? Not sure, but it looks like you will hit this then from manage.c:
WARN(!desc->irq_data.chip, KERN_ERR "enable_irq before setup/request_irq: irq %u\n", irq))
?
You got a chicken n egg problem :)
-- viresh
| |